I am very much for a two-step process as outlined by Sean. I mean, the group currently has 'only' 45 members, and I am having trouble keeping up with the discussions as it is...

If we're going to open Loomio up to more people, we'll need to work out a system re creating new proposals, groups and so on, so that this only happens in agreed circumstances; or we'd need to as Loomio to work out a system of deciding how many email notifications we receive, as I can't see any way of doing this. I've been getting loads of emails over the past week - once there are more people, this could increase exponentially if one of the above two isn't implemented.

I guess we'll be able to turn of mail notifications, loomio is a very young project ,)

For duplicates I'd say just pointing to the old discussion, waiting a day and then letting the admin(s) delete the whole discussion (is that possible already Sean?) is the way to go as long as we can handle it. If we outgrow of that we can get back to the issue and see how loomio has developed till then.

I think it's great talking about these things!

@Sean: First let me say thanks for your efforts for starting this presence here on Loom. I think it's a great tool with a lot of potential for our community.

I can see it would be too difficult to monitor whether someone has an account here or not, so I misspoke. Perhaps we say we encourage an account. I think that Jason is right. Not everyone is going to participate here.

And even if people come from the outside who don't have an account, don't you think eventually they will want one? So I think I will actually be more radical and let anyone who wants to be a member be a member. Maybe the only "requirement" is that an existing member must invite you in.

I mean IRC doesn't require an invite. You just create an account. And if things need to move into a private discussion, people can create new groups to convene and speak more privately. I think that is possible here too.

Do people get out of hand in IRC? Do people survive? I think they do.

I will admit that we will require organizing tools to quell the chaos if it becomes detrimental. Like allowing me to set priority tags to the activity here or subscribing to discussions, I'm not sure.

It is hard to keep up on discussions here, but that is because of the UI, not because of the amount of content. If there is a lot of content, could it mean that people are bursting with things to say or to suggest? Why not give it the space?

I'm sure we can advocate, making our voices heard to Loom what changes we would like to see here to help us do better. And if you think about it, if we did that, then we are doing EXACTLY what I'd like to see happen at Diaspora. For users to have some say in what would help us do what we want to do.

Since Loom is committed to creating a tool that accommodates political discourse, I'm sure they want our feedback. They do not presume that they know ahead of time if the tool will work or not. They want us to use it and they want us to succeed in using their tool. At least that is my take on it. :)

@Flaburgan: I agree that there is need for more organization. I think it will come, naturally! :)

Using Loom for discussion about where the community goes and where the D* tool goes is better than discussing these things on the stream, IMO. There is a better archival process here, and on the stream things melt away.

That does not mean I think people should be dissuaded from bring concerns up on the stream. Only that Loom becomes the record of voices, about how we feel about things, and what actions we look to take.

In the past, using the stream ended up causing bad feeling and a sense of being ignored for some folks. I'm not saying it matters anymore what the particulars were back then, but why not learn from our collective mistakes?

If I sit and think about it, the main cause for miscommunications is not giving a space for people to discuss.

I do think promoting awareness by posting hashtags on the stream to let people know that there is a discussion happening here is a great idea!

Hey yo, bumping an old thread.

Loomio introduced better privacy controls, and I think ours need "opening up" since now it's possible :)

Right now we accept anyone who requests to join, but now Loomio also allows "open" setting - which wasn't available before. I propose we change to that.

I also propose we set "Discussion privacy" to "Public only" - we don't need private talking here - let's stay transparent. This setting was also not available before.

Image attached of what I propose the new settings would be (arrow=new setting).